Which servers are better, free servers (psn) ... or PTP servers (XBL)?

Im just curious, I was talking to my friend and he tells me PTP servers are better than free ones. Since I told him I have 1-2 months to decide what system I should get. Ican get a 360, and play it. But at the same time I am worried of the whole RROD thing. Also I could get a ps3, and play all my old ps games (if I dont end up selling them), plus is free for psn.

I been wondering I knowPSN is free, butyou dont have to pay EA, orValve to play in their servers ... or do you play on Sony onlyservers??

PLEASEEEEE!!! Could I get answers from people that have both systems, or have played on both networks. Im not trying to start a preaching war, I just want to know which one is better. Free, or PTP (pay to play)servers.

Playing online on ps3 is completely free, you dont pay anyone

and PTP servers lag

i think the PS3 server's are better because of there dedicated server's, the xbox 360 servers are full of lag, it's been 2 year's and microdoft hasn't got around to the server's, i give them my money and i get lag in return, TF2, COD4, RS Vegas sometimes not all the time LAG

though having said that the xbox 360 is the best way to play games online...

Not all PS3 games have dedicated serves like fanboys would have u believe actually.

The lag is also extremely overexagerated really.

XBL sis amazing and it has amazing content.

I say 360 just do to itstraffic. The number of people who are on Xbox live surely surpass those on PSN. GoreObsessed

Yeah this really matters because ALL of those people are with you in the game your in

Dedicated servers are certainly much better than P2P period. No lag and much higher player counts. Not to mention PSN's dedicated servers are free and you pay for XBL P2P.

PSN is about being opened ended for the developer so you get the good things like dedicated servers for some games and also the bad like the lack of unified communication. Still that is something that will change and it's not very likely MS will ever have 32 player dedicated server games.

lol to psn servers being better, all those cows that are saying xbl p2p lag havent ever played on live, lagging is rare, it happens on ever server, pc 360 and psn, and weirdly I have been laggying on more ps3 game that on live,amorbis1001

....intriguing.

thank you all for not making this a debate war. believe me, allof your words have been read, and it has helped me in my choice of my future next gen system.

once again thanks ...

lol to psn servers being better, all those cows that are saying xbl p2p lag havent ever played on live, lagging is rare, it happens on ever server, pc 360 and psn, and weirdly I have been laggying on more ps3 game that on live,amorbis1001

I would agree with you if people who play on 360 didn't say otherwise.

i bought XBL, wat choice do i have?

I could care less about voice messaging, matchmaking, messenger(msn).

as long as i dont get any lag. its good to me.

PTP is way better especially if you have a good host. psn people often dont have mics and there is also poor messaging and friends systems. xbox 360 is the way to go for online play without a doubt.dipper145

That would be fine and dandy if it wasn't for the TS asking which servers are more reliable. Not which has more features.

I own all 3 consoles.

on XBL: I can't say I'm dissapointed, as it is a great service, but the lag is really bad, its not there all the time, but when it is there, its annoying, and I ask myself why am I paying $50-60/year for something that works 1/2 the time.

on PSN: In my 8 month long experience w/ the PSN, I have some things I like and some things I don't like. I like the no-lagg...in 8 months I haven't lagged at all, like 100% 0 lag...in most games, although I haven't played too many multiplats on the PS3, due to them usually being better on the 360, COD4 on the PS3 was killing me though, until they fixed it :). I don't like how u have to exit the game to add a friend to your list (COD4), or how there are seperate lists for different games.

Other than that, their both great services, I personally prefer the PSN. But XBL is not bad, and when not lagging its actually a superb service.

Everyone is going to have a different situation because the most important thing is the quality of your connection. I wonder how well Tekken works on PSN because DOA4 I had nothing but problems for the most part.

Everyone is going to have a different situation because the most important thing is the quality of your connection. I wonder how well Tekken works on PSN because DOA4 I had nothing but problems for the most part.

JiveT

Dark Ressurection plays pretty smooth...havent played DOA yet so i cant comment. I should be getting the X360 version of VF5 soon after i sell my PS3 version, so i hope that plays well online...now if only i could use my PS3 controller on X360 for the better dpad :P

i think the misconception is that EVERY game you play on the PSN is on a dedicatedserver.not every game has dedicated servers like CoD4 and if you set up a private game with your friends then you dont play on the dedicated server either its p2p then.

psn is far better in terms of no lag.

but this can also be contributed to the fact that the amount of people that use psn is relatively small compared to xbox live subscribers.

the xbox live p2p network was fast enough for halo 2, there was never any major problems.

but now, they're using the same exact(basically) network for halo 3, which has a lot more data to push around from player to player. it's just not enough. whether their P2P networking code is bad, or the fact that it is P2P and you're not GUARANTEED a good connection, xbox live is not what it used to be.

I prefer dedicated servers. No host advantage, No lost match if the host leaves the room, and Usually has less lag. I do prefer the DL speeds and some of the features of XBL but I hate that we get charged for the service and have to pay for content.

I don't think most people understand what lag is. It's not a matter of whether or not their is lag (since all servers have it), its the matter of how severe the lag is. I have few problems with xbox live. Recently there were a couple of bad games in which case, the game is unplayable but it is unfrequent. You can easily notice when everyone is at either 1 bar or two bars and yet one person has full.

It was funny because the host went to our spawn point, and we were all getting wiped out by him.

I've never played PSN, but I have played pc games for a while. Of course, I've never seen anything as bad as the Crysis beta servers.

Haha the Cows have invaded this thread!Burnsmiesta

not only cows ... but lemmigns who arent blind

I own all 3 consoles.

on XBL: I can't say I'm dissapointed, as it is a great service, but the lag is really bad, its not there all the time, but when it is there, its annoying, and I ask myself why am I paying $50-60/year for something that works 1/2 the time.

on PSN: In my 8 month long experience w/ the PSN, I have some things I like and some things I don't like. I like the no-lagg...in 8 months I haven't lagged at all, like 100% 0 lag...in most games, although I haven't played too many multiplats on the PS3, due to them usually being better on the 360, COD4 on the PS3 was killing me though, until they fixed it :). I don't like how u have to exit the game to add a friend to your list (COD4), or how there are seperate lists for different games.

Other than that, their both great services, I personally prefer the PSN. But XBL is not bad, and when not lagging its actually a superb service.

-D3MO-

...it never lags for me

But over the years that I have been using X-box Live I have built up a huge list of great people ,some who I know in real life and others who I don't, but I would say I play with them almost everyday and thats my reason for sticking to xbox liv

i think the PS3 server's are better because of there dedicated server's, the xbox 360 servers are full of lag, it's been 2 year's and microdoft hasn't got around to the server's, i give them my money and i get lag in return, TF2, COD4, RS Vegas sometimes not all the time LAG

though having said that the xbox 360 is the best way to play games online...

TheMetalSquid

besides Resistance and Warhawk what other PS3 games are dedicated servers? motorstorm? RS vegas? reading the IGN review for COD4(PS3) they didn't say anything about the PS3 version being dedicated and the review also said there is minimal lag in the console versions.

all I want to know is this, are some games dedicated or all games dedicated?

EA had dedicated servers for BFMC on the 360 and theres only like 2 games on PS3 that use them (resistance and Warhawk as far as I know).

[QUOTE="Burnsmiesta"]Haha the Cows have invaded this thread!humber_matus

not only cows ... but lemmigns who arent blind

its not about being blind, you get lag no matter where you play, even on the PC in a dedicated room for any game you can get lag, of course you can get more lag in P2P, but for PS3 fans to say there is no lag at all can't be true, if PC is not perfect I really doubt sony is gonna come out of the blue and make a perfect online service.

I know Resistance and Warhawk are dedicated servers so I can understand that, but games like Rainbow Six! is that dedicated? I'll go read the PS3 review for that game and see if it says anything about dedicated servers, and if it isn't then I can promise there is lag in that game. there is always some fool somewhere downloading music or porn while you are playing, and other reasons of course that could be out of your control.

I'm not saying that PSN sucks or its not good, all I'm saying is that I'm sure there are lag issues, every platform has issues.

PTP is better.

it offers a much easier, unified, online service that allows for limitless gameplay.

servers with ps3 games have been known to drop stats, kick people off, and not allow gamers to connect.

but the really bad part is; the servers are limited-life, meaning eventually the developers will pull the plug on a specific game to make room for new ones, or if the developer goes under altogether, you'll lose access to game on their servers. Happens all the time in this industry.

it's also important to remember that sony has not changed their stance in saying they reserve the right to charge... meaning, eventually they will...

PTP is way better especially if you have a good host. psn people often dont have mics and there is also poor messaging and friends systems. xbox 360 is the way to go for online play without a doubt.dipper145

I am reading this thread, and people seem to confuse this thread with critiquing the overall overall online services instead of critiquing what the TC is asking.......which server is bettter

Im just curious, I was talking to my friend and he tells me PTP servers are better than free ones. Since I told him I have 1-2 months to decide what system I should get. Ican get a 360, and play it. But at the same time I am worried of the whole RROD thing. Also I could get a ps3, and play all my old ps games (if I dont end up selling them), plus is free for psn.

I been wondering I knowPSN is free, butyou dont have to pay EA, orValve to play in their servers ... or do you play on Sony onlyservers??

PLEASEEEEE!!! Could I get answers from people that have both systems, or have played on both networks. Im not trying to start a preaching war, I just want to know which one is better. Free, or PTP (pay to play)servers.

SyinnX

Don't know why you would be worried about the RROD on the 360, its pretty much a non issue with the newer consoles and the 3 year warranty....and if you buy a 40gig PS3 you wont be able to play your old ps2 games....that being said, I own all three consoles and I rarely lag on both networks, as long as your connection is good you shouldn't have much problems on either network....I personally prefer xbox live over psn

i think the PS3 server's are better because of there dedicated server's, the xbox 360 servers are full of lag, it's been 2 year's and microdoft hasn't got around to the server's, i give them my money and i get lag in return, TF2, COD4, RS Vegas sometimes not all the time LAG

though having said that the xbox 360 is the best way to play games online...

TheMetalSquid

Encountering lag now and then does not = "full of lag". Dont exaggerate. 90% of the time you have an easy, hassle free experience.

As for PSN, this is something of a myth that is uses dedicated servers. It doesn't at all. It uses P2P just like xbox live. The only games to have dedicated servers are sony's games; no developer would invest the millions necessary in servers for one console game.

Resistance and Warhawk are the only games i have with dedicated servers, and even having said that, resistance only uses dedicated servers when you have the full complement of players. If its possible to have it P2P hosted, it is.

psn servers are waaaaay better, and psn runs silky smooth. no reason for anyone to be paying for online, unless you dont have freinds in real life, and are stuck looking at gamertags, and achievements, just take a look at my sigG10mgs4

I realise you're a huge fanboy, and that's fine in system wars. Dont you feel guilty however, giving horrible advice to people who are actually going to spend money on something in real life?

There's no way you can say PSN is better. There's no contest. The only thing which should be a decider is whether or not you're willing to pay (TC).

If you dont want to pay 40 bucks a year, go with the PS3. If you're fine with paying the money, xbox live is hands down superior.

Thats the best advice i can give you.

XBL should be free since it is P2P and MS has dashboard advertisements. PSN's dedicated servers do not lag nearly as much as Live does. I love the features XBL offers, but when it comes to actually playing a game online, PSN has Live beat. If Sony ever brings the features like an in game dash and private chat it will be the superior service, especially since it is a free.Big_Boss465

Gold members should have the ads removed. I think thats complete BS. Microsoft seem to want it both ways; free service paid for by ads, or no ads and charge a subscription fee; no wait, let's do both!

And even then, you still have to pay a buck for a freakin' gamerpic. Rediculous.

Regarding dedicated vs. P2P servers:

The vast majority of console games (on any platform) use peer-to-peer servers, which simply means they make one player run the server. Game servers are not processor-intensive things at this scale... basically all they do is stream out game data to 12-16 clients, and receive incoming player input streams. And they have some code to keep everyone synchronized.

There are a few PS3 games that use dedicated servers... I think Resistance is one, and Warhawk is another. But you're dreaming if you think every online PS3 game uses dedicated servers... few game developers have the money or even expertise to maintain high-availability game server networks capable of serving thousands of simultaneous customers (realistically, only the MMO folks can justify doing that.) And you're especially deluded if you think game developers will do it for free. Home will use dedicated servers, but they have a business model that provides for that -- they will sell you lots of useless crap, and if collectively, you don't buy enough useless crap, they will shut it down.

Having said that, dedicated servers and P2P servers both have their pros and cons. With dedicated servers, you are typically at the mercy of the server operator with regard to game settings, mods, player limits and yes, lag. If your dedicated server is located in a tiny data-center in western Mongolia, piped out through a fractional T1 routed through six different African countries before it gets to you, then your gameplay will suffer no matter what. Of course, dedicated servers generally won't be that bad, but bad servers do exist, and are more common than you might think.

Also, there are only a finite number of dedicated servers out there. A reasonably popular PC game might have maybe 1000-2000 game servers worldwide. Exclude high-ping servers, buggy servers, servers with no cheat protection, etc. and you may have a selection of around 20-40 servers on which you'll have a good experience. Of those, a handful may be running the game settings you want. And if your game of choice loses popularity, then all the servers will disappear and you'll be SOL, even if you want to just want to get a quick pickup game with your friends for old times' sake.

The flipside is those server machines are dedicated - their entire processing power is used to run the game servers (because most "dedicated servers" are actually running several game server instances at once.) So they can serve more players per server. And they are usually located in data centers with big, enterprise-grade bandwidth, so they aren't subject to the vagaries of residential internet connections (which is what causes the lag associated with P2P servers.)

With peer-to-peer servers, you get to control the game settings, and if you want to get a group of friends together, it's easy to pick the guy with the best connection as the host. Many games do that automatically; the "host" is simply the person who gets to pick the game settings. The only real downsides to P2P are that the servers can't support as many players both from a processing and an upstream bandwidth standpoint, but as both processing power and upstream bandwidth improve, pretty soon those disadvantages will be eliminated as well. But then most console games are designed around those limitations anyway. The other disadvantage with P2P is the host could potentially muck about with the game session, introducing lag or cheating, but Xbox Live on 360 has made that exceedingly difficult, and cheaters get Avoided or Reported.

Which brings me to why I think Xbox Live's premium service is better than Sony's free service; namely that Xbox Live feels like a service in that there are people at Microsoft who are working to provide you with a great game experience. It's tough to describe in words, and it doesn't come out much in a bullet-point list of features, but once you play it and dig into it, it all becomes clear. The way everything fits together to form a consistant whole, the way it feels like you are constantly connected, the way Xbox Live is just there, all the time, making things better.

For example, cross game invites. I'm in game X, someone invites me to game Y, I swap discs and I'm taken to that person's game instantly. Or the way Achievements get uploaded to the network so that everyone can see them across sites like Mygamercard.net or 360Voice.com. Or the way TrueSkill monitors your skill levels independently in every game while using the same ratings scale across all of them, so you know that anyone with a TrueSkill rating of 45 in a game must be a master at that game, no matter what game it is. Or the way Halo 3 modifies the Xbox Guide to let you see a player's Service Record, Party Status or File Share when you're viewing his or her Gamercard. Or indeed, the Gamercard itself and the information it reveals about every single player.

Indeed, having an Xbox 360 Player Profile that isn't linked to Xbox Live (whether Silver or Gold) is almost like having a disability... it's not just about online gaming, it's about that feeling of connectedness to an entertainment service. And it's well worth $50 a year.